(07-08-2022 05:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2022 04:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The reason people are concerned about 'laws against law abiders that don't impact criminals' is that criminals are by far responsible for more shootings than legal gun owners.

Chicago gun violence


https://www.google.com/search?q=chicago+...e&ie=UTF-8


While we are concentrating on how to stop the occasional nut as in Highland Park, Chicago continues to have mostly unremarked gun violence, mostly by criminals, mostly not assault weapons, mostly undeterred by some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Blame Indiana, yeah.

Every "mass" event like HP gets 100+ times the media of the everyday "mass" events in Chicago and other large blue cities.

I feel like I have posted this multiple times after you have posted multiple times about how these inner-city shootings are relatively ignored.

First of all, of course a mass shooting event is going to grab more eyeballs then routine, single shootings.

Secondly, most of these inner-city shootings are performed with handguns. The thought of trying to regulate handguns is so overwhelming relative to the potential regulation of semi automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, etc.

Thirdly, the whole issue of inner-city violence is a completely different animal and honestly seems more difficult to tackle in that it involves centuries of limited pathways of prosperity to black Americans and the 20th century growth of inner-city gangs.

1. "Routine" shootings? Some of those "routine" shootings are also "mass" shootings. But the MSM will not spend days and weeks on a "routine" drive by even if it kills 6 or 7, including babies.

News outlets put out stories that history shows engage the most eyeballs.
Which is more likely to grab your attention, OO? A story about a person gunning down 30 people at a concert or a story about a night-time shooting on a street corner of a bad neighborhood in Chicago?

Quote:2. shouldn't the concerns of the antigun lobby be concentrated on the guns that kill the most people, rather than the guns that kill the most people at a time? But in any case, they will eventually come for the handguns too, when it is politically expedient.

Maybe they feel that handguns are impossible so they are concentrating on regulations that the majority of Americans seem to be in favor of?

Quote:3.We have had inner cities and gangs for a long time, both predating the Emancipation Proclamation or even the Great Fire of London, and also centuries of violence among the poorer inhabitants of a city. Sometimes - quite often, in fact - those gangs were white. Just don't see the race card as playable here.

You brought up modern-day gun violence in "blue cities". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that primarily involves black people. That is why I brought up race. 17th Century England doesn't seem especially relevant to this discussion. Are you really trying to say that race plays no role in inner-city gun violence today?